MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415766171 · doi:10.1016/j.csbj.2025.10.054

Enhancing detection of epileptic seizures using transfer learning and EEG brain activity signals

2025· article· en· W4415766171 on OpenAlexaff
Erol Kına, Ali Raza, Prudhvi Chowdary Are, Carmen Lili Rodríguez, Julién Brito Ballester, Isabel de la Torre Díez, Naveed Anwer Butt, Imran Ashraf

Bibliographic record

VenueComputational and Structural Biotechnology Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsEmergent BioSolutions (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectroencephalographyBrain activity and meditationEpileptic seizureTransfer of learningEpilepsyFeature (linguistics)SIGNAL (programming language)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Epileptic seizures are neurological events characterized by sudden and excessive electrical discharges in the brain, leading to disruptions in brain function. Epileptic seizures can lead to life-threatening situations such as status epilepticus, which is characterized by prolonged or recurrent seizures and may lead to respiratory distress, aspiration pneumonia, and cardiac arrhythmias. Therefore, there is a need for an automated approach that can efficiently diagnose epileptic seizures at an early stage. The primary objective of this study is to develop a highly accurate approach for the early diagnosis of epileptic seizures. We use electroencephalography (EEG) signal data based on different brain activities to conduct experiments for epileptic seizure detection. For this purpose, a novel transfer learning technique called random forest-gated recurrent unit (RFGR) is proposed. The EEG brain activity signal data is fed into the RFGR model to generate a new feature set. The newly generated features are based on the class prediction probabilities extracted by the RFGR and are utilized to train models. Extensive experiments are carried out to investigate the performance of the proposed approach. Results demonstrate that the RFGR, when used with the random forest model, outperforms state-of-the-art techniques, achieving a high accuracy of 99.00 %. Additionally, explainable artificial intelligence analysis is utilized to provide transparent and understandable explanations of the decision-making processes of the proposed approach.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.145
Threshold uncertainty score0.385

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputational and Structural Biotechnology JournalSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207